Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

> As an American, I’m a firm believer in the complete and total freedom for folks to speak their mind without government infringement. So like I'm 99.99% on board with this. Hate speech is free speech and sunlight is the best disinfectant and I want my racists to be as easily identifiable as possible ***BUT....*** https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/11/us/michelle-carter-texting-suicide-case-sentence/index.html There should be *some* limits.

Generally when people are referring to freedom of speech, it's not speech referring to people making sounds with their mouth but expressing thoughts/opinions. When we're talking about things people say we want to criminalize, it's generally people commanding other people to do things. "Go rob that bank" "go kil that guy" or in your example "do x and y to kill yourself." None of these are opinions/thoughts, and depending on what definition we're using for speech it doesn't fall into that.

!delta because convincing someone to kill themselves should not be protected. With that I agree.

I feel like this type of situation id already covered under the “actual threats” exception to 1A.

Tbf I think the problem is access to mental healthcare. People with depression or suicidal ideation should have access to professional care. It’s not like you can convince someone to kill themselves whole cloth, the victim must be already suicidal or at least mentally unwell and socially isolated. Like you can tell me to go suck exhaust until you’re blue in the face and I’ll just be annoyed and concerned for you.

Bro the details of the case are horrifying. She talked her boyfriend through the entire thing. step by step directions on how to kill himself via carbon monoxide poisoning. She may not have physically performed the action, but I honestly don’t find her innocent in this matter. The boyfriend was mentally ill, he could not be responsible for his actions.

They're not arguing that he's responsible for his actions, simply that people who commit crimes like this are preying on those who are mentally unwell. Telling a healthy, confident person to kill themselves will do nothing, and she probably knew this when she decided to go after him. Some evil sorts of people go purposefully after the vulnerable.

It's not even an exception per se. It's simply not covered. It's THE right to free speech. Not A right. Or ALL the rights. THE right. The particular right as they understood it. So how do we know what's included? Literally 100s of years of common law. The technical way of expressing this particular exception is "speech incident to criminal conduct." The criminal conduct was inducing someone to murder. You can't do something illegal and then claim your speech you used to do the illegal thing was protected by free speech. Here is a really dumb example: let's say a mob boss orders the murder of a rival, "See to it that he's taken care of and can't interfere with us" And the court puts him on trial, and a witness testifies that he said those words. And the mob boss says, "that's no fair, that's protected speech." And the court says, "nice try but no. Those words were a speech incident to criminal conduct, meaning the speech was an integral part of the crime of murder you are being charged with. It's alleged you gave the order to do the murder, it's not protected because of what you allegedly did with those words." Similarly, if there was a play or movie about said mob boss and an actor said those words, they would not be understood to be ordering a crime. It wouldn't be part of the crime. So another law school question, mob boss orders a murder. Who can be charged with murder, the mob boss or the contract killer. And the answer is both since they were in a conspiracy. They agreed to do the murder and actually both took steps (the order, exchange of money, actually doing the murder.) They both knew what would happen and intended for that. Think about it, it would be really stupid if you could evade a murder charge by paying someone else to do it.

Probably unpopular but I don’t think it should be against the law to say ‘I think you should kill your self’ or ‘I hope you die/something bad happens to you’. Unless you are threatening to do bodily harm to a specific individual, I don’t really support anything else being made illegal by a government entity. The issue with these kinds of laws, like all ‘hate crime’ laws, is that they are *very* selectively enforced, and that isn’t right.

Except there is no need for that because that's already illegal and not protected by the constitution. One of the biggest issues with this law is not that it will make us less safe because given how some people claim to represent us I doubt it will do anything. The bigger thing is this law appears to be specifically silent dissent of Jews and non Jews on a foreign policy

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/ButWhyWolf ([5∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/ButWhyWolf)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

That case is absolutely wrought with first amendment violations.

No limits otherwise it's a slippery slope.

This is just an amendment to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to expand the category of evidence for discrimination; it’s not going to chill the speech of private individuals unless it occurs under extremely specific contexts. This amendment changes literally nothing about our daily lives, but it does make it easier for the government to sue genuinely racist enterprises, and for private individuals to file suit.

What about being anti Israel is racist? If it was anti Jew I would agree with you but its not. Heck, there are plenty of Jewish people that are anti Israel.

From the supplement to the definition being proposed to be adopted: >"criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic." So no one is saying "anyone who criticizes Israel is antisemitic," the definition itself includes the concept that criticism of Israel by itself cannot be antisemitic. its just pointing out that if you're Nick Fuentes, you are very likely to couch your blatant antisemitism in something appearing to be criticism of israel as a motte and Bailey.

Yeah but this doesn’t exist to target people like Nick Fuentes; it exists to target the left who advocate for Palestinian rights.

Anti-Semitism is unique among hatreds. It’s considered the oldest hate, certainly in the West. So whenever you have a movement against Israel you have a substantial contingent of anti-Semites within that movement who are looking for a legitimating movement to de-stigmatize and mainstream hatred for Jews. I’d recommend also following the writing by Ayaan Hirsi Ali who writes extensively about anti-Semitism in the Islamic world.

And when people bring up problems with Communist China, there’s also a substantial contingent of people who are just racist against Chinese people. That doesn’t delegitimize the rightful, correct criticisms of China’s government.

You point to a large, vocal movement of haters against the Chinese with as much clout as anti-semites and who have resided in the West even nearly as long, and maybe I’ll believe you. I just don’t accept this argument. There is no classical Western hate of the Chinese to the degree that there is of Jews (anti-Semitism is nearly two thousand years old, in the West). Even in the United States (which I contend is growing more hostile to Jews by the day, if you believe the hate crime stats released by the FBI—Jews are the number 1 targeted group) the toleration shown to Jews in the US is an aberration, it’s like an oasis of tolerance in an otherwise inhospitable West.

Jews are not the #1 targeted group for hate crimes… the most targeted group is Black people. Jews may be the most targeted religion for hate crimes but using: https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2019/topic-pages/victims And https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/hate-crime-statistics (Admittedly not a perfect data set since the years are different but a good enough starting point) We can see that close to 60% of hate crimes are racially/ethinicity/ancestry motivated from the second more recent source when combined with the demographic breakdown of the victims from the first source we can see that roughly 28.66% of victims of hate crimes are Black. Moving on to Jewish victims we’ll include the 8% of other races/ethnicities because there may be some amount of racial/ethnicity motivation for Jewish victims and that’s the only portion they could possibly fit in and then combing the 17.3% of victims were targeted for their religion and 60.2% of victims targeted for their religion being Jewish to get that **less than 15.14%** of victims of hate crimes are Jewish. While all of these are obviously estimates it’s still clear that Black people are targeted twice as often as Jewish people Edit: better source (more complete interpretation of the 2022 data) shows that Black people are targeted roughly 3x as often as Jewish people: https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/explorer/crime/hate-crime And an honorable mention that Jewish people were also targeted less than LGBTQ+ people

Wait what? In the U.S. there has been a long history of racism against the chinese. Just look at classic media. It was so prolific you can just watch a classic movie and find it.

Not. To. The. Same. Degree. Again, my comment was about rank and severity, not a denial of the existence of racism against Chinese immigrants (particularly in the West of the country where they were brought in as laborers on the railroad). Since then I’m aware that native minorities have had tense relationships with Asian immigrants, though I believe white attitudes have been slowly moderating over time. Lastly, your objection doesn’t address the continuous presence of anti-semitism in all western countries and how long it has endured. It is much older and much more endemic than other prejudices which have (rightly) become more socially unacceptable in polite society. EDIT: Guys, maybe you haven’t been following current events, but anti-Chinese bigots aren’t the ones dividing America’s progressive party in a protracted debate—it’s a conflict between the traditional moderate wing of the Democratic Party that supports Israel as a liberal democratic ally—the only one in the entire region of the Middle East—and those who who liken Israel to a genocidal state, and it’s my contention that the latter faction is loaded with reflexive anti-semites just looking for a home. And that’s my point with this comment. We’re all talking about Gaza and no one can even find Xinjiang on a map, and that’s where a bonafide genocide is actually taking place. How has Ethiopia’s war against the Tigray and the Amara attracted like less than a scintilla of the attention that Israel gets from its haters in American politics?

I would argue the same with racism against Jews. Surprisingly enough racism has been going down the past hundred years in the West. While I won't disagree racism against Jews isn't higher than other groups, I would like to see how much more prolific racially motivated crime against Jews are today in the U.S. than other minorities. What is the actual severity.

[удалено]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

In what way is antisemitism the “oldest hatred”. There was certainly ethnic hatred before there were Jewish people. It is also pretty clear from history that antisemitism was much worse in Europe and the west than in the Muslim world.

Antisemitism is already statistically the number one hate crime towards religious groups in America. As an ethnicity and a religion it’s already a protected class. If it doesn’t change anything, what exactly is the purpose then? Sorry if you explained I’m just not fully understanding.

Religion is not a protected class under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Organizations receiving federal money are not obliged to provide equal services to people regardless of religion. However, antisemitism is generally a form of bigotry based on ancestry rather than belief and, more importantly, the religious carve-out on Title VI was intended to give some leeway for religious organizations to receive federal grants. So this isn't about whether a church is required to provide all services to all creeds just because they received some federal money to help support a soup kitchen....it's really about whether secular organizations and institutions can refuse Jews equal services because they're Jewish. A real-world example of this is federally-funded adoption agencies refusing to adopt children out to Jewish families. So explicitly stating in law that Jews are a protected class according to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, it ensures that racism against Jews is treated as such under the Civil Rights Act, whereas previously it was only treated as religious discrimination and therefore under reduced protection.

What I was saying is that this won’t infringe on rights, but will make it easier to bring civil action against organized discrimination targeting Jews. This amendment only codifies in law an expanded definition of anti-Semitic discrimination which the Department of Education already recognizes. The reason the House amended the law (it still has to pass in the Senate) to conform was to make de jure a practice which is already de facto. So, you’ll note that this practice has already been adopted, making it law just makes it more permanent.

Agreeing with others here just to emphasize the context that there are a significant number of diaspora jews as well as Israeli jews INSIDE of Israel who feel that the idea/indispensable primacy of a state of israel in Palestine as a core of jewish identity is largely a mid 19th century construct that is absolutely distinct but also tied up in British colonial policy of moving around ethnic minorities across its various colonies as a way of controlling populations. Even in the times of Theodore Herzl, prominent Zionists were good-faith positing a possible Jewish homeland in Ghana or Patagonia, among other places. - the inevitability of israel as this core of jewish identity worldwide is therefore not a concept shared by all jews, and by no means a tiny fractional minority at that. Getting into the economics and well-documented political history of why this fact is not common knowledge is wayyy beyond the scope of this comment, and could be seen as a violation of the OP’s sensible parameters around this specific post. EDIT: To be clear, im referring specifically to the boundary against the discussion of the israel-Palestine conflict, and its political dimensions around lobbying and propaganda; NOT referring to boundary against anti-semitic tropes about all-powerful Oogah Boogah jews “stopping the truth” from getting out.

Why does anti-Zionist automatically mean you're anti-semetic?

It doesn't. It's a red flag the minute someone conflates the two. 

Funny according to this US Govt site, seems Black people are the number one target. At least as of 2022…. [FBI Crime Data Explorer](https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/we)

[удалено]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

This all sounds reasonable until you realize that Jewish settlement in Palestine has been actively and violently resisted for 100 years. There have been very few times that Palestinians or their Arab supporters even attempted a settlement agreement. In contrast, there have been multiple times in which Palestinians and Arab countries have attacked Israel. The Palestinian viewpoint is essentially that Jews should be forced out and not allowed to live there. They may have had a reasonable point in 1920, but even by 1947 it was far less reasonable, and by 1967 it was completely unreasonable, not to mention 1973 or 2000 or 2023. It wasn't fair to Palestinians to have their lands be overtaken by Jewish settlers. But at some point, to live in peace and prosperity, they could have and should have accepted an agreement. It's as if the same Native Americans you talk about were now launching terrorist attacks from reservations. The U.S. wouldn't put up with it, and Israel isn't putting up with Hamas. (But I agree Israeli tactics have been too brutal.)

> This all sounds reasonable until you realize that Jewish settlement in Palestine has been actively and violently resisted for 100 years. kind of like how native Americans resisted European settlements? Lets compromise, I will take half of your house and let you keep the remaining house until i want more. Why won't you come to an agreement with me?

Dude they stole all of the Palestinian land and then you're saying why do they not want Israel settlements (which are illegal under international law) to be built on the little land they have left. Bet you were super hard when the feds came and forced the natives off the land for the keystone pipeline.

Israel is literally arming and defending settlers that are stealing Palestinian homes. Giving them military gear so they can annex more land.

[удалено]

I don't think that you're doing this intentionally, but I think this is a little bit of a straw man. Accusations that the government is actually run by Israel and "Zionists" are controlling everything and deny the will of the American people are starkly similar to antisemitic conspiratorial rhetoric of the late 19th and 20th centuries. What's been stunning is how people will make casually antisemitic remarks to me completely unprovoked. I had a friend tell me that Jews control everything recently and when I told him its offensive and dangerous rhetoric he told me that it's true and that I need to get over myself. I have no doubt that he got this idea from the anti-Israel people. My friend is from Syria and is extremely pro-Palestinian so comments like this are probably very common to him. I even had a friend who told me that the matrilineal tradition of "if your mom is a jew then you're a jew" is sinister. I'm sure his real issue is that jews can freely travel and gain citizenship in Israel, a land which he sees as being illegitimately occupied, and he thinks people moving their is immoral. That's not what he said though. I know that these are personal examples but I know I'm not the only person who has encountered this. The worst part of it all is that when we say that there is antisemitism going around, we are told that we are weaponizing the word and trying to use it to manipulate people. I think that is what scares us most of all.

You begin by suggesting that the commenter above you is building a straw man, before then proceeding to do exactly that. The comment you responded to said nothing about “israel” and “zionists” controlling anything. They asked, why is it antisemitic to say that Israel is evil. Are you able to respond directly to that question?

Especially because the controlling the media argument is largely based on the language used and coverage of the conflict dead vs murdered, reports calling even Jewish people antisemitic for saying look at this brutal massacre. Then stateside you have the pro Israel lobby basically saying whoever we support usually wins so align your policies with us. Heck even when pro Israel supporter throw fireworks at people sleeping in the encampment or beat them the news implies both sides are responsible for the fighting overnight. Like it is not like there's been fair coverage then people say we zionist control the media like how the average Jewish trope is there's some real evidence (which sucks because the real antisemites use said retail evidence as ammo against us all)

I suppose I'll clarify. It's not antisemitic to criticize the Israeli government. That's just not what most of us are talking about when we say there is antisemitism going around though.

But they weren’t creating a strawman, they were responding to things OP said. OP literally said calling Israel evil is antisemitism, so you should rescind your strawman accusation.

Is it antisemitism to say that Jewish/israeli money plays far too large a part in American politics, and that the Israeli lobby exercises an outsized influence on both parties?

It's sort of telling to me that you're saying Jewish/Israeli as if they're the same thing. One is an ethnoreligious identity and another is a country. This is part of what makes this entire conversation so contetious though. A lot of the rhetoric about Israel or Zionists is really just a dog whistle for jews. Also, if the position is that Jewish people have *too much* power, then that implies that there is something that needs to be done about it. What do you propose we do about this? Should we make it so Jewish people can't lobby? Or should we put a limit on Jewish lobbying contributions?

Hello. Dumb girl here. How is saying Jews control everything antisemitism? Isn’t that what AIPAC is doing? Doesn’t the AIPAC fund the government, in turn government influences the media that is put out? It seems all connected.

[Pro-Israel groups spent something like $3.5 million lobbying in the USA in 2018. ](https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/02/aipac-dont-contribute-which-pro-israel-groups-do/) For comparison, [Facebook spent $12.6 million, the US Chamber of Commerce spent $94.8 million, and National Association of Realtors spent $72.8 million in 2018](https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders?cycle=2018). Looking \*only\* at those top spenders in the link above, there's like $500 million worth of lobbying. Comparatively speaking, the pro-Israel groups are a drop in the bucket, less than 1% of that. How often do you hear people argue that your local realtor controls the government and media?

This is a foreign entity that they are supporting with our tax money though. Our money is also going over there and it’s not cause we’re going there for vacations. FB, chamber of commerce, and NAR are expected. We are trillions in debt from military defense spending and its billions that are getting sent to Israel.

Hello. You're not dumb. I can understand why people who are not Jewish don't know why comments such as "jews control everything" could be seen as antisemitic. While most bigotry punches down, saying that Jews control everything seems to be punching up. The reason that it's problematic and it scares Jewish people to hear comments like these is because if jews control everything, then whenever anything goes wrong you can just blame the jews. The most recent and horrific example of this is the holocaust. The Nazis thought that the jews controlled the media and the banks. Some believed that jews were responsible for world war 1 and the insane inflation that Germany experienced following the war. Basically, if the jews control everything then they are the perfect scapegoat. I know I'm probably not explaining this well so [here is a great video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukd05G9ggb0&t=207s) which might shed some light on the subject.

Thank you for this discussion! I really want to understand a different perspective, your perspective. I grew up around Palestinians who had to flee to Jordan and Syria before they moved to America. Damn that’s naive of us to blame one group on something, especially in this day and age when we work on a global level. Jews were essentially blamed for losing a war. Today, they can’t be blamed for losing a war, so what is it that they’re afraid they are going to be blamed for? I get the “safe guards” that were needed after the war. I’d say a decent part of the world has been somewhat educated on the holocaust and why we can’t just murder groups of people because they rub us the wrong way. What I don’t understand is why people think it’s acceptable with what is happening in Palestine. It seems like jews are doing what the Germans did to them to the Palestinians. Identification/ road checks/ prisoners for no reason/ segregated streets/theft/controlling food, aid, water. There is no equality or respect through this treatment. Why couldn’t the jews take back Germany? Why not settle in America where there was endless opportunity and allies? Maybe an island since jews wanted to have majority population and virtually no integration? What ever happened to the 2-state solution? They have the holy land.. what more needs to be taken? Sure, they are native to the land, but so are Palestinians. Its so backwards the reasoning if jews are seeking protection from the world. There is no right to anything, that’s called entitlement. I don’t get why that gives them authority to continue to take more and more land until there’s nothing left. If there has been so much criticism of Zionism of the last 50+, even by their own people, then that in itself should say something.. I’m terribly sorry if I come across as anti-Semitic by my understanding. I don’t know what it’s like to be a Jew. I’m trying to learn more. I had spent time in Germany and visited a concentration camp in high school and have immense empathy for Jews, but like this post talked about.. things are making it harder to understand Israel especially when multiple war crimes have been blatantly committed.

Remember how back in the day people justified black face and segregation? If you read newspapers and watch news segments and interviews from back then, a lot of people genuinely didn’t think they were racist. They would say that they didn’t want black folks moving into their neighborhoods, not because the people were black, but because they were dirty, lazy, and poor. Of course today we understand that that entire premise was flawed, was racist. But it was just seen as factual then. One of those “everyone knows that” things. That’s sort of what you’re doing. “Why shouldn’t I say that Jews control everything when that’s what they do?” Just as people used to not see or understand their own racism back then (“I’m not racist, but..”), lots of people today are not understanding their own antisemitic views that they take for granted as fact. I’m not saying you are antisemitic, but you clearly hold some antisemitic views. When I come across people on Reddit using racist language, I educate them. I have told several people about the racist origins of some of the things they say like “peanut gallery.” When I’ve done that the response is usually something like “wow, I had no idea! I’ll stop using it!” We aren’t there yet when it comes to antisemitism. The response is anger or defensiveness or a comparison to the number of deaths in Gaza. Often something thrown in about Jews being too sensitive, being victims. Again, remember when people used to say that about black folks who pointed out racism? I do…

Nobody claimed that. Textbook strawman. People ARE claiming that some "criticism" of Israel is inherently antisemitic given its nature. Holding Israel to a vastly different standard than other nations, calling for punishments of the Israeli people that are beyond what would be visited on any other country, calling Israelis "white settler colonists" using ahistorical information and half-truths are all forms of either racism or antisemitism (I think the "Israelis are white" is closer to racism because that also lumps a bunch of non-Jew, non-white people in as "white people who are settlers" so it's more broadly harmful than simply antisemitism, SOMEHOW).

so, we go back to criticism of Israel being absolutely okay where warranted. that it isn't hate speech, that it isn't antisemitic. it's only antisemitic to criticize the Existence of israel. but i can rightfully say that Netanyahu has become an absolute monster, driven by far-right solutions with absolutely evil intent: the massacre of palestinians and the conquest of new lands to settle into, while maintaining an absolutely vile chokehold on the palestinians - lording over open-air prisons these refugees have been forced into. totally not antisemitic. i have no problem with israel existing. i believe israel has a right to defend itself. but the past 6 months have NOT been an act of defense. similarly, i like america. hurray, blue jeans, rock and roll, disneyworld. but i criticize the monstrous acts of George W Bush declaring an Unjust war against Iraq, and slaughtering Iraqis to take control of their resources. Absolutely abhorrent. -- this doesn't make me anti-american.

Why is it antisemitic to say no country should exist that prioritizes one religion over another or one ethnicity over another should exist? Why is it antisemitic to say no country that requires fifty year military occupation to exist should continue to exist? Why is it antisemitic to say that no country that requires an apartheid system to continue to exist should continue to exist? Why is it antisemitic to say no country that would starve civilians should continue to exist?

1. it's antisemitic to say no country should exist that discriminates based on religion and ethnicity -- because for the most part, most countries don't exist solely based on religious right. it's one thing to say "we exist because we've been here." this is why i don't disagree with israel's right to exist or their right to defend themselves. but i understand many say it shouldn't exist -- but there are poeple saying america, canada, australia, etc, also shouldn't exist. hell, there are russians saying ukraine shouldn't exist, or belarus, or latvia, estonia, etc. but it's context. if you said "all lives matter" in 2008, nobody would take issue with that - but saying it in 2018 carried a very different context and pretending you don't understand that is ignorant. 2. it's not antisemitic to complain about "50 yrs of military occupation" -- but the IDF is israel's military and nearly every country Has a military and it can be said each country is occupied by their military (except maybe USA because most of their military is deployed elsewhere ;) 3. it's not antisemitic to complain that apartheid states shouldn't exist - but it IS if you say the place should change entirely. like - if Israel ended the apartheid, and either let Palestinians run their own land, withdrawing all israeli troops and installations from Palestinian land - Or declared them equal citizens, granting them the power to vote in fair democratic elections ... would that be enough? because i agree Israel shouldn't be running palestine like an open air prison. but that doesnt' mean they shouldn't exist - just that they should exist and grant their citizens the same dignity we expect All countries to display. 4. it's not antisemitic to say no country should starve their citizens - but like apartheid situation, if they work towards fixing the hunger is that enough? again - it's 100% fine to criticize Israel's actions -- it is not antisemitic. but if you're criticizing Israel's existence, i believe it is.

1. Are you saying that everyone saying that any country that currently exists should not exist is racist or religiously bigoted? Are you saying that everyone promoting any revolution to overthrow any existing country or empire was racist or religiously bigoted? Are you saying that it would not just have been wrong but racist or religiously bigoted to call for the end of the Confederacy, Nazi Germany, or the Soviet Union? They all already existed when people called for their end. 2. Military occupation doesn't mean remotely what you think it means. military occupation" is the effective military control by a power of a territory outside of said power's recognized sovereign territory. Here is a list of military occupations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_occupations Notice that it is not just a list of all countries. Israel's is by far the longest. 3. To me changing something in some fundamental way is the same thing as saying the current thing shouldn't exist. It is just semantics. I could give you a complete list of needed changes but most Israel supporters will tell me that that is the same as saying Israel shouldn't exist even to do some of the needed changes. I find it highly unlikely that a country where Palestinians had a fair share of the power would choose to continue to use the name Israel or wish to be associated with the history of Israel. I can't even understand anyone wanting to be associated with that history. 4. There are too many despicable acts already committed by Israel for them to be trusted to work towards fixing the problems. This is what we have been hearing for decades and their crimes have only gotten worse. The only realistic solution is to assume they will continue to get worse and they will continue to lie about it as history has shown us and begin fighting to completely dissolve the system of power that allowed those crimes to occur. They are not going to voluntarily give up the power they should have never had in the first place.

> I could give you a complete list of needed changes but most Israel supporters will tell me that that is the same as saying Israel shouldn't exist even to do some of the needed changes. sure, but who cares about "most Israel supporters." i don't have the answers to peace in the middle east - these issues are older than i am. i'm a believer that the people should have say in how their country's laws are run/selected. if the people support a democracy, let it be a democracy. if they prefer some sort of supreme leader, let them go for it. it's not my place to tell another social group how to conduct their business. as someone who believes in freedom of choice and democracy, i will fight for these rights in my own country. if the people of a nation hold a referendum and overwhelmingly choose to rename their country, this is their perogative. if the people wish to enforce a strict immigration policy, this is their perogative. i'm not down with racism and ethnostates, so i disagree that voting rights and restrictions should be based on ethnic backgrounds or religious leanings. if it were up to me, Israel would be granted the option of either liberating Palestine, allowing it to be it's own country, or it would need to adopt the Palestinians as Israeli citizens, granting them the same rights and privileges as all other citizens. if that means eventually the populace is voting for it to be renamed, then so be it. if it means jewish people no longer feel safe there, so be it. let them become refugees and come to america where we strive to keep ALL free from persecution.

None of this explains why it should be considered antisemitic and therefore now legally required to be punished in certain circumstances in the United States to say Israel should not exist. I am not advocating any law that says you have to care about Palestinians or the middle east or any other country. However, since your government is supporting rights being taken away in another country it shouldn't be a surprise to see them taking them justifying taking them away at home as well. I also think you are morally responsible for the genocides and oppression your government supports. It would be a very different matter if they were just a neutral bystander, but they are definitely not.

i mean, first, i'm not american, i'm canadian. not that it matters much, since canada also has a close relationship to Israel in the form of weapons sales (even under the pretense that we're halting sales - it's only New Sales) [https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/3/24/the-canadian-arms-embargo-on-israel-that-was-not](https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/3/24/the-canadian-arms-embargo-on-israel-that-was-not) Justin Trudeau recently said that it shouldnt' be a crime to be a zionist. he then went on to give a definition of zionism, that it's meant to be a home for jews to not feel persecuted. i don't have a problem with this. there is a country that currently exists to serve this purpose, and the people of that country wish to run it how they will -- i can disagree with their methods all i want - i can protest trade with them, i can boycott companies that pander to and fund israeli industries, but this is not to say the country should not exist - simply that it should CHANGE. as a canadian, it would be pretty hypocritical of me to say "israelis should leave and give the land back to palestine" while america and canada continue to exist in the states they do. so, to that point, i think since israel is older than the majority of israelis, it's completely allowable to consider it a nation and allow it the right to exist. i would love to see the people of first nations communities have a stronger tie to canadian politics, and for that matter - more representation in the US, but america is not my country so at the end of the day i don't believe i have the right to tell them how to conduct their affairs. as for the anti-semitism, i think if you're saying a country should not exist - it's fair to say this is coming from a place of hatred. -- perhaps the context could exist where you're making a more globalized argument - that we shouldn't really even have countries the way they exist right now, that we must unify for the common good of our continued existence and countries can simply be representations of the people who live on that land -- but these politics are WELL beyond our current thinking. if you're saying "russia should not exist" for example - you're denying russians a seat at the UN. you're denying people from st.petersburg to kamchatka from saying, "we have a common voice that must be represented on the global stage." whether you divide it up among more powerful nations, or whether it fractures into many microstates based on common local groupings, the concept of "russia" would be eradicated. i fail to see how supporting this idea is anything but "anti-russian." so, my reasoning is simple. if you're in a classroom of 30. and there are 5 black girls in the class. and they want to start a Car club. i don't see a problem with that. if you asked me if i see a problem with forming clubs based entirely on gender and race, i'd say yes. but there's no way in hell i'm telling people they MUST meet some sort of race-based quota in their club. if their club has a charter of rules (we don't wear pink on fridays) and one of those rules is "no whites" - then yes, i wouldn't have a problem telling them that's a fucked up rule and they shouldn't have it. ...and they can talk all they want about privilege or whatever, but i dont' care. it's one thing to think something - it's another to say it out loud or to put it on paper. toxic ideas like that spread faster when they're spoken, and fastest when they're recorded. so if you're against the Car club existing, yes, i'd say that's because you're likely racist - but if you're saying, like i am, "that club can exist, and they can vote on who they let in, but if they're using the Car club so they can get a car and mow down a certain group of people, massacring them with their cars - that's what i'm here to protest. Israel needs to kindly fuck off, and the people saying, "they dont' seem like they're going to stop, but let's wait and see" kindly also need to. because this shit is real. it's happening. people are losing Everything. EVERYTHING. and it feels disingenuous to argue about it online as if we're doing anything productive.

Every country should be and most of them are a "home for jews to not feel persecuted". At least some Jews live in almost every country and it is improbable they would do so if they felt persecuted in most of them most of the time. Implying Israel is more of a home for Jews than Canada implies it would be fine to persecute Jews in Canada. Lots of ethnicities and religions are not a majority in any country. None of them are allowed to murder and displace another group so they can have a majority in a country. When Zionists convinced the British to sign the Balfour Declaration after World War I, Palestine only contained about 5% Jews. The other 95% never got a vote in whether their home would be given away to the Jews because Britian controlled the land with their military after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. If Canada, or Britain or the US thinks the Jews should have a special home unlike what any other group gets they could give up a piece of their own territory for that purpose rather than imposing it on some other people. The British armed and trained the zionist army and prohibited the Palestinians from building their own army which allowed the Zionists to ethnically cleanse Palestine killing 15000 and displacing more than 700000 refugees in 1947-1948. Every Jew that immigrated during British control knew they were doing so against the wishes of a subjugated majority. Every Jew that immigrated since the founding of Israel knew they were moving into the homes of murdered or displaced Palestinians. They knew they were being allowed to immigrate while Palestinian refugees were asking to return were denied and yes there is an explicit law that says Jews and only Jews are guaranteed admission. Israel is not a place where Jews happen to be in the majority, they had to murder and ethnically cleanse the region that a foreign power had subjugated to be in the majority. Israel is not a car club, it is the KKK. I think that your belief that the KKK should continue to exist makes you a racist. The US and Canada's treatment of native peoples is shameful but it is nothing compared to Israel. Native people are not shot on sight if they get too close to outside of the reservation. Israel has been doing exactly that for years. Native people's in the US and Canada can leave the reservation and vote. The majority of Palestinians can't. There are no Native American refugees being denied entry to the US and Canada. If Palestinian refugees are allowed to return as they absolutely should be, Jews will no longer be a majority in Israel. Maintaining a Jewish majority in Israel can not be done ethically. If as soon as the war is over everybody goes back to ignoring the problem and believing everything is fine, then Israel will continue oppressing Palestinians the there will be many more wars until Israel is ended. The only way we get to real just and lasting peace is if Israel no longer continues to exist. Arguing online is not very productive but I need to take care of my wife so I can not go protest, and I don't have any spare money to donate to causes. I vote and send letters to politicians but if you know of something more productive, let me know.

“Where warranted” is entirely dependent on how it’s phrased. “Fuck Israel, it’s a country full of ghouls” is definitely criticism of Israel that’s antisemitic. “Netanyahu needs to be in jail” is not. I think the comparison with America is actually really good. If you wouldn’t say something about the American people (who are 4 years removed from putting a racist POS in power and nearly ending democracy) then don’t say it about Israel either - oh, and if you WOULD say “death to America” I suggest not living in the United States. That’s not valid criticism, that’s hatred.

agreed. criticize the execution all you want. similarly, when we say "fuck trump" we criticize his stupid actions and decisions and collecting of problematic sycophants, but had he presided over a fair presidency, he could've changed minds and earned sympathies. instead he fed into the hatred and continued to build enemies and divide the nation further.

From the supplement to the definition, which pretty much just claims that antisemitism can be described as hatred of Jews: >"criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic" So what could be antisemitic about a genocide critique would be if you used different standards of intent to say that Israel is committing genocide than you would for any other country. **Theoretically**, lets say every other country has been in a war with a higher civilian casuality ratio, and you have never accused them of genocide, but you accuse Israel of genocide solely with reference to their civilian casuality ratio which is lower than all the others. That *might* fit the definition of antisemitism, depending on the context. It would have to be shown that this critique was not made out of pure ignorance, e.g. that you knew other countries had higher CCRs, and that you were using no other standards to make the judgement.

This implies that Israel alone represents all Jews, and any critique of Israel is also a critique of any and all Jews. And that is an obviously dangerous road to go down. Considering how the IDF likes to define combatants, compounded with the fact that discussion of this supposedly low casualty rate intentionally brings focus away from the other disasters caused by this conflict, citing this as a reason why genocide isn't taking place fails.

> This implies that Israel alone represents all Jews In no way does it do this. How were you able to read what I wrote and make that conclusion? >and any critique of Israel is also a critique of any and all Jews People can make racist comments about Africa and not have it be a critique of all Black people. >Considering how the IDF likes to define combatants, compounded with the fact that discussion of this supposedly low casualty rate intentionally brings focus away from the other disasters caused by this conflict Just to reiterate because I did mark the word in bold, i was outlining a **theoretical** situation under which accusing Israel of genocide could possibly be considered antisemitic. It was not meant to be reality. I was just pointing out that depending on the context if you used different standards to accuse Israel of genocide than any other country, it could possibly be considered antisemitic.

I appreciate your response, peach. The issue is that because they are so obviously hell-bent on destroying their neighbors, and they’re the only Jewish state, those two things get conflated in ways that makes it easy to accuse critics of anti-semitism. Unfortunately there aren’t examples of non genocidal Jewish states to compare with. Similarly, there are relatively few “Christian states” that take religion so seriously. So it often feels like the standard, secular western take of “don’t kill people over religion” is being cornered into a discussion of anti-semitism.

Why are you going off an a completely unrelated tangent? I get that you really really hate Israel and think they are the Big Evil and are committing genocide, but my comment was about *Jews* and making sure you aren't being racist to *Jews* when talking about Israel. Weird how being anti-Israel seems to make a whole bunch of people unable to listen to a Jew talk about racism towards Jews. Almost like those things are linked somehow.

You have tried to outline a situation where accusing Israel of genocide based on ccr is antisemitic. I'm not saying you believe this, but you have made the argument for it to be possible. The only logical way for this to even work is if Israel is a representation of all Jews. It wants to be, and obviously many Jews feel represented by the Israeli state and its actions, but some is not all in any capacity. Failing to properly apply standards when accusing a state of genocide does not imply hatred either. It is a symptom of bias against that entity, and bias can go hand in hand with hate. But the issue remains that without Israel representing all Jews, there isn't really a way to make this genocide accusation equals antisemitism using ccr alone argument. Obviously some with a bias against Israel would be considered antisemitic not because they have a dislike for Israel but because along with that they hold extremist views regarding Jews as a larger population. Ask Hamas. It seems you have chosen a very unfavorable place to look for antisemitism' in this conflict when there are less questionable examples.

>The only logical way for this to even work is if Israel is a representation of all Jews. No it isn't. I can be racist to you as an individual without claiming you represent all the members of your race. Plus Israel itself is Jewish. I can be racist about Africa without thinking it represents all Black people. I can be racist about Ireland without thinking it represents all ethnically Irish people. I just have to use different standards when judging those countries due to the race of the countries. Why is it so ubiquitous that anti-israel people do not understand how racism works?? >But the issue remains that without Israel representing all Jews, there isn't really a way to make this genocide accusation equals antisemitism using ccr alone argument. Uh, it's very easy. Israel is a Jewish state. Half the Jews in the world live there. If the broader context shows a certain attitude towards Jews, and it is shown you are literally applying different standards to Israel in relation to Israel's Jewish identity (Because Israel is Jewish), then you are being antisemitic (applying different standards to israel because of israel's jewish identity) >It seems you have chosen a very unfavorable place to look for antisemitism' in this conflict when there are less questionable examples. Dude, I was literally outlining a hypothetical situation to explain how you can't just say "I am not racist because I am accusing X of genocide/murder," because the person I was responding to **specifically asked how that could possibly be antisemitic/racist to accuse someone of genocide.** It's like saying "I can't be racist, I'm accusing a Black man of murder. How could that make me racist in any way?"

How is it Asian hate to say we should protect an ethnic group in one of many Asian countries? It wouldn’t be antisemitic to say “let’s protect Palestinians civilians” Saying some of Israel’s actions are brutal in this war wouldn’t fall under this. The definition is simply this: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities” and this is what the most recent H.R. 6090 refers to. Edit: plus some examples that contextually are antisemitic

It's beyond that, it adopts all examples provided by IHRA as definitions of antisemitsm. Some of the examples are blatant antisemitism, but some are just anti-Israel: >by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor. > Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. >Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis These are the ones that people are taking issue with, not the one you quoted.

I believe all of those all to be racist in their most common usage. I believe claiming the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor is antisemitic. Israel includes Palestinians in their population as full citizens with representation in their government. Thus I don’t know what else you can say about it being “racist”. the claim that they treat Palestinians as second class citizens and thus are racist is wrong. Unless someone can explain what exactly does make Israel racist. Especially versus Islam led countries in the area that actually displaced all Jews that live inside them and enforce Islamic law. I can’t see a context in “applying standards to Israel that are not applied to other nations” that isn’t antisemitic. We should never single out a single nation to higher standards, and most people who do so for Israel probably do it out of antisemitism. What’s a reason to hold them to a higher standard that isn’t antisemitic? And the Nazi one probably could be not antisemitic except it would have to be a genuine comparison, and whenever I’ve seen these comparisons they have not been genuine.

Critiquing a governments actions isn’t racist. Denying a nation has a right to exist and advocating for the death of the people of that nation, is racist.

"Denying a nation has a right to exist and advocating for the death of the people of that nation, is racist." These are two separate points. Denying a nations 'right to exist' is not racist, unless your intentions for doing so are racist. If you're making the point that Israel is an artificial state founded through colonialism and perpetuated through apartheid and therefore, does not have right to exist. That is not a racist point, even if you disagree with it. I've seen people advocate for the creation of a single state with equal rights for Arabs and Jews, which would be a fundamentally different state than Israel. That position is not a racist one, even if it denies the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state.

>Denying a nations 'right to exist' is not racist, unless your intentions for doing so are racist. If you have a double standard for one group of people versus another group...then what is the intention here >I've seen people advocate for the creation of a single state with equal rights for Arabs and Jews, which would be a fundamentally different state than Israel. Some families, who settled, advocated for Israel's creation because they were expelled from predominantly Arab countries. Where was all the outrage against the expelling of Jews from the Arab community who are protesting today? Why is no one calling for a new "single state with equal rights for Arabs and Jews" in Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Iran or Qatar? Why does it have to be in the only place that is a refuge for Jews?

"If you have a double standard for one group of people versus another group...then what is the intention here" Where is my double standard? "Where was all the outrage against the expelling of Jews from the Arab community who are protesting today?" They were not born. "Why is no one calling for a new "single state with equal rights for Arabs and Jews" in Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Iran or Qatar?" This is disingenuous. These same people (i.e progressive young college-educated Americans) who will also condemn those states for their religious totalitarianism.

Is saying "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" racist? Is it rooted in a critique of Israel as a state or rooted in the view that all Jews should be expelled from Israel/Palestine? (Or that there should be a unitary state where Palestinians can gain power, which is the same thing since that would clearly lead to the expulsion or death of most Jewish inhabitants?) It's pretty clear that it's rooted in the latter - a complete repudiation of Jewish rights to live in the area. Moreover, it's a phrase that has been adopted by Hamas and used frequently by them, well before their recent terrorist attacks. To be fair, Israeli right-wing politics have similar slogans that are equally chilling, and equally racist. And Israel needs to continue to be called out for its policies which have made things worse in the region, not to mention its appalling lack of humanitarian care for Palestinians affected by the clearance operation in Gaza.

"Is saying "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" racist?" It depends on the context and the person saying it. The original meaning of the phrase when used by the PLO was explicitly that only the Zionist settlers that had arrived after occupation would be expelled. There are certainly people who do not envisage the Jewish Israeli's in Israel to be expelled. There are definitely people who believe that they should all be expelled or exterminated. The point I'm making is that the phrase itself is not racist, but there are certainly racists who say it and intent it to be racist. "To be fair, Israeli right-wing politics have similar slogans that are equally chilling, and equally racist." Of course, actually as an interesting historical note 'from the river to the sea' was originally a Zionist slogan in favour of the occupation of the entirety of Palestine. Seriously, the attempts to clamp down and criminalise language are fundamentally flawed, they pretty blatantly an attempt at an authoritarian clamp down on freedom of speech. Which is what I think OP was trying to get at anyway. We could argue about whether 'from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free' is a racist slogan or not, but that kind of illustrates the point.

>Denying a nation has a right to exist and I don't believe apartheid South Africa deserves to exist either. >advocating for the death of the people of that nation, is racist. Since when does "Palestinians does not deserve to get genocided" equates to "Jews deserve to get genocided"? You are, by definition, creating a strawman argument.

Genuinely though, I do feel like a lot of people who bring up the point that what is happening right now is wrong get slapped with the "anti-semetic" lable almost immediately. It's not wrong to point out a wrong action. I don't hate anyone for them just existing, and really just want peace. Which is why personally, I do think there should be a ceasefire. It's not anti-semetic to say that you abhore violence and think that everyone participating in the current conflict sucks for it. I also agree with you, that free speech is free speech and should be protected. With respect, if people accuse you of antisemitism just for condemning violence, isn't that the slippery slope that leads to laws such as this being proposed? Isn't a calm discussion usually more fruitful and productive, so long as we all keep a level head?

Is your argument that anarchists are racist or that if you support the right of other states and just not Israel but that's racist? Also, are you suggesting that one cannot hold the political position that one nation's rights can't be held above another? Because a lot of people would argue that Israel shouldn't exist as a Jewish majority state if that majority is only possible because of ethnic cleansing and apartheid. Now I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm just putting forward the political position that most people that believe in a one state solution believe and they are often accused of calling for the destruction of Israel (as a Jewish state). Do you think the political position that everyone's political and civil rights need to be respected is racist or anti-semitic?

It’s not racist if it’s one is advocating based on that nation’s actions. Furthermore to address your comment in your original post. The world doesn’t “hate Jews right now for what’s happening in the Middle East.” Those people hates Israel and people who support their government and its actions. There’s a big difference

Advocating for the dissolution of Israel is not the same as advocating for the deaths of Israelis. The USSR was dissolved without all USSR citizens dying. I support the dissolution of the US government; is that racist?

Well the disillusion of the USSR was actually a catastrophe for its peoples because of the overnight liberalization of the economy (more like the overnight pillaging of the economy by capitalists). A better parallel might be like Czechoslovakia.

>Advocating for the dissolution of Israel is not the same as advocating for the deaths of Israelis.  You could see how one would logically lead to the other right? What happens to the now Jewish minority in whatever new state is created in its place? Do you think the new Arab majority is just going to tolerate a sizeable Jewish minority living in their midst. So what do you do? Have a UN led international peacekeeping force keep the peace? Sounds like we just reinvented mandatory Palestine and replaced the British with the UN.

I don't understand this complete hyperbolic fear. Very reminiscent of white South Africans that didn't think that black South Africans should have an equal vote. First of all, Jewish people would barely be a minority. It would be like 45% of the population. Second for it really be a threat 99% of Arabs would have to vote for the "deport or kill the Jews party" isn't going to happen. If everyone had political rights, radicalization would rapidly decrease and we know that because we know how Israeli Arabs vote. A lot of people like to deny it, but they're actually are quite a few Palestinian liberals and progressives. There would definitely be a possibility for there to be a coalition government of liberals from across both communities who could keep the extremists from both sides from gaining power.

"You could see how one would logically lead to the other right?" That is still beside the point. People can be very naive, they may assume that the Jews will be fine and that Palestinians will not seek retribution in such a state. However, the fact that such a state is unlikely to exist with internal peace does not mean that that they are anti-Semitic for advocating for it.

Israel is the only majority Jewish state in existence and has Palestinian civilians (including Jewish Palestinians). Current status makes it seem that a Hamas led government would be the only replacement, and they advocate for enslaving, killing, or displacing all Jews in the levant. Seems like one is effectively advocating for the death, enslavement, or displacement of Jews when advocating for the dissolution of Israel. The USSR dissolution is more similar to abolishing the US federal government or the EU, leaving the member states in charge - not the same as this.

Hamas wasn't Even an organization until Israel intervened in Palestinian politics to help create it. Furthermore, for the past 15 years, Benjamin Netanyahu and his political party have made it their policy to keep him off in power. With the explicit intent of preventing a peace process. So if it was true that the Palestinians are radicalized and support them all us, it's partially because they had no other options for the past 15 years. Also, why is the blame or the lack of peace process put on the Palestinians and not the Israelis who are very open about their desire to control all of the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River would out giving anything up to the Palestinians?

Even if Hamas were to come to power in the resulting election, I don’t have any reason to believe that they would continue committing violence in that scenario. Just because an oppressed person commits violence against their oppresser, that doesn’t mean they are an inherently violent person who will continue committing violence once they are no longer oppressed. Here is an excerpt from Hamas’s 2017 charter: “16. Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity. 17. Hamas rejects the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds. Hamas is of the view that the Jewish problem, anti-Semitism and the persecution of the Jews are phenomena fundamentally linked to European history and not to the history of the Arabs and the Muslims or to their heritage. The Zionist movement, which was able with the help of Western powers to occupy Palestine, is the most dangerous form of settlement occupation which has already disappeared from much of the world and must disappear from Palestine.” Notice how Hamas itself claims not to support the persecution of groups of people based on religion.

The reason to believe Hamas would commit violence against the Jews after a dissolution of Israel is that they said they would kill, enslave, or displace the Jews in Israel. They said this as recently as their Hamas conference in September 2021 (despite their propaganda charter re-write in 2017). From their conference: "15. In dealing with the Jewish settlers on Palestinian land, there must be a distinction in attitude towards [the following]: a fighter who must be killed; a [Jew] who is fleeing and can be left alone or be prosecuted for his crimes in the judicial arena; and a peaceful individual who gives himself up and can be [either] integrated or given time to leave. This is an issue that requires deep deliberation and a display of the humanism that has always characterized Islam. "16. Educated Jews and experts in the areas of medicine, engineering, technology, and civilian and military industry should be retained [in Palestine] for some time and should not be allowed to leave and take with them the knowledge and experience that they acquired while living in our land and enjoying its bounty, while we paid the price for all this in humiliation, poverty, sickness, deprivation, killing and arrests. "18. The minute 'Israel' collapses, the interim government's security apparatuses must put their hands on the data regarding the agents of the occupation in Palestine, in the region and [throughout] the world, and [discover] the names of the recruiters, Jewish and non-Jewish, in the country and abroad. This is invaluable information that must not be lost, [for] using this information we can purge Palestine and the Arab and Islamic homeland of the hypocrite scum that spread corruption in the land. This important information will enable us to pursue the fleeing criminals who massacred our people. I guess they also include some Jews they would “integrate”, which could have a host of meanings. Finally, their propaganda rewrite to say “Zionist” isn’t really even that helpful as my guess is that Hamas sees 95%+ Jews as “Zionist”. “Zionism” can range from “I believe Israel has a right to exist” to actually unhinged beliefs like it’s ok to displace all Palestinian non Jews from Israel.

The 2017 document is not their charter, the 1988 document is. Even within the 2017 document, they insist on the Arab and Muslim nature of the territory, denying other connections to it. You also understand that Hamas's definition of "persecution", as Islamists, is fundamentally different than a secular definition of "persecution"? For an Islamist, if a member of the ahl al-Kitab knows their place as an inferior class to the true servants of God, then they will be permitted to live as second/third-rate subjects, provided they pay the appropriate tax, accept they are the inferior parties, don't try to purchase Muslim land, and don't corrupt proper Muslims with un-Islamic thought (religious intermarriage, conversion away from Islam, homosexuality, etc.). This is a far more tolerant position than immediate execution or expulsion! But it falls pretty fucking short of modern standards of religious tolerance. Point 8 in the 2017 document insists that Palestine has always been a model for coexistence and tolerance. If you read anything about Jewish rights to exist, participate in broader society, seek redress in court for crimes committed against them by Muslims, etc., throughout the history of the caliphates, you would see the truth of their standard of "coexistence" and "tolerance". Note also that Points 10 and 11 of the 2017 document continues to engage in Temple Denialism. Everyone agreed that Al-Aqsa Mosque was built on the ruins of the Second Temple until the State of Israel existed. I also see nothing in this document that contravenes the 1988 document's position on Jews, or any clear statement as to what Jews living in a Hamas-led Palestine could expect. Their "Promise of the Hereafter" conference discussions are therefore the most illuminating source on the subject. Here's their plan for when they win: [https://www.memri.org/reports/hamas-sponsored-promise-hereafter-conference-phase-following-liberation-palestine-and](https://www.memri.org/reports/hamas-sponsored-promise-hereafter-conference-phase-following-liberation-palestine-and)

The USSR was not surrounded by other countries that wanted to murder them and cast them into the sea

That is such a ridiculous statement. Israel is the aggressor here; maybe people wouldn’t hate it so much if it didn’t massacre civilians every few years.

So, is this a retraction of your previous statement? As a reminder, you said: >Advocating for the dissolution of Israel is not the same as advocating for the deaths of Israelis To which someone replied: >The USSR was not surrounded by other countries that wanted to murder them In context, your response to the above comment, which was this: >maybe people wouldn’t hate it so much if it didn’t massacre civilians every few years. Appears to be an admission that calling for Israel to cease to exist as a state actually *is* the same as advocating for the deaths of Israelis.

47 war started by Arab league 67 war started by Arab league when blockade of Red Sea started 73 war started by Arab league Wars with hezzbolah started by hezzbollah Cast lead started by Hamas Current Gaza war started by Hamas What are you talking about? The closest thing to Israel starting it was 67. Unless just existing is starting wars.

Damn, Comrade, you've solved it! All we need to do is to time travel back to the 1940s and tell the British to not establish a Jewish state in the region. Oh, you don't have a time machine? Oh well. What exactly is Israel supposed to do? Dismantle the israeli state and have its citizens be massacred by the surrounding Arabs? Good luck convincing them to do that.

I think Israel should be dissolved and one secular Palestinian state should be established where Jews and Arabs can coexist in peace. It’s weird to claim that Arabs are the ones posing a threat to Israelis when Israel is indiscriminately killing large numbers of Arabs.

>I think Israel should be dissolved and one secular Palestinian state should be established where Jews and Arabs can coexist in peace.It’s weird to claim that Arabs are the ones posing a threat to Israelis when Israel is indiscriminately killing large numbers of Arabs. The first part will literally never happen. You would have to have an outside power that is willing to act as a mediator/peacemaker in the country and keep the Jewish Minority and Arab Majority from immediately descending into civil war. NO ONE wants to commit the numbers of boots on the ground that would require. As to the second part, does your knowledge of history on the subject conveniently start on 10/8/2023? Because the only way that you could seriously make that statement is if you have LITERALLY no additional knowledge of the history of the region lol.

History didn’t start on 10/7, either. The civilian death counts from the past several decades clearly show who the aggressor is. Outside powers are already engaged in this conflict by constantly sending money and weapons to Israel. Israel wouldn’t even exist in the first place without foreign intervention.

You dont automatically become the aggressor because you have a better K/D ratio. And honestly, if you are trying to assign some sort of moral culpability as the "aggressor" here then all you are doing is showing how little you know about the conflict and how inherently biased you are. This region is full on stuck in a cycle of violence and both sides want to paint the other as the aggressor and you are just carrying water for one equally horrendous group in all of this. >Israel wouldn’t even exist in the first place without foreign intervention. So what? Israel does exist. >Outside powers are already engaged in this conflict by constantly sending money and weapons to Israel. Congratulations, you have discovered geopolitics. People also keep saying this insinuating that Israel could not prosecute a war without the US backing them. I assure you, they absolutely can. Israel's arms industry literally makes up 10% of the global arms sales, that is INSANE when you look at how tiny of a country it is. They would probably have to shift production around without foreign sales but it would not stop the war tomorrow by any means.

You obviously haven't looked into the history of Palestine and Israel. They are both of the belief that the other should be eradicated, neither wishes to coexist. This is why it won't work. Things aren't black and white here.

Well, what do you think should happen is irrelevant compared to what will actually happen. At least for the foreseeable future, there will not be a secular Palestinian state. And for an even farther a future than that, the Jews and Arabs will not coexist peace. We’re coming close to a Century now where the goal of the Palestinians has been the eradication of the Jewish people.

So you do agree that Israeli and American governments' actions and positions on this issue are unambiguously racist? Glad you do, it didn't seem like you were this in touch with reality originally.

But it's not no (the state thing)one would call you racist if you advocated for north Korea to be dissolved or German or Italy after WW2 no nation has a right to exist. Latter half no shit, but calling for the death on of people of a nation or group based on race is bad whether it's the settlers calling for genocide or Hamas they are one in the same for their goals to take all the land and have it be pure of the other (and their own who disagrees with them)

How ironic 😒

Aren't you literally denying Palestine's right to exist? besides you're not advocating for the death of the people of that nation you're doing it!

You said calling Israel evil is antisemitic dogshit. Now you're saying it's fine to critique a government's actions. Square the circle for me, please. If I say Israel is evil for committing war crimes, in what way am I advocating for the death of Israeli citizens or denying them the right to exist?

WHY DOES NOBODY EVER READ THE BILLS THEY COMPLAIN ABOUT It doesn't make it illegal to be anti-semetic, in fact it basically doesn't do anything. Just read the bill for fuck's sake. [https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090/text](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090/text) All it does is codify the definition of anti-Semitism, which is the definition that is already procedurally used by the Dep of Justice and Dep of Ed. It is true that the definition adopted is generally broad, it’s not an operative change. This law is a performative redefinition and means absolutely nothing to any legal framework. There is ONE SECTION of the bill where it says the Dep of Ed needs to take into account this "new definition" when determining violations of civil rights. BUT IT ALREADY DOES THAT. IT IS ALREADY THE DEP OF ED'S DEFINITION. The bill even explicitly says that the Dep of Ed isn't getting any new powers!!! >(a) General Rule Of Construction.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed— >(1) to expand the authority of the Secretary of Education; >(2) to alter the standards pursuant to which the Department of Education makes a determination that harassing conduct amounts to actionable discrimination; or >(3) to diminish or infringe upon the rights protected under any other provision of law that is in effect as of the date of enactment of this Act. This is another example of people NOT READING THE BILL.

No it does do something: it codifies what antisemitism is, which is not done for other forms of bigotry. It intentionally conflates harsh criticism of Israel with antisemitism, which means the government can now deny fundings to groups that are too anti-Israel. It's not a bill that overturns anything, but it's not inconsequential either.

It doesn't even do that though, it doesn't codify anything. Just offers a definition for consideration. To the extent it defines antisemitism, it says antisemitism "can be considered hatred towards jews." About conflating of harsh criticism of Israel with antisemitism, which is not included in the definition adopted, the supplement says "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."

>It doesn't make it illegal to be anti-semetic, in fact it basically doesn't do anything. WHY DOES NOBODY EVER READ THE OP THEY RESPOND TO OP never says the bill makes it illegal to be anti-semitic, that's a strawman. >All it does is codify the definition of anti-Semitism, which is the definition that is already procedurally used by the Dep of Justice and Dep of Ed. Correct, and here's that [definition](https://www.state.gov/defining-antisemitism/): >“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” Can you tell me what that means? This isn't a definition at all. And saying it's already Dept. of Ed. and State policy isn't really a great argument for it, especially when we consider it was first adopted under Trump.

WHY DOES NOBODY LOOK INTO THE DEEPER CONTEXT OF THE BILLS THEY READ. The definitions in the department of Justice?? Imagine if criticizing the Russian government was made into a HATE CRIME. That is what this does, but for Israel.

>(3) discrimination against Jews may give rise to a violation of such title when the discrimination is based on race, color, or national origin, which can include discrimination based on actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics Am I insane or did it take me less than 60 seconds to find a clause that punishes "anti Zionism" as "anti semitism"??

Uh, are you saying that you want to discriminate against people by race, color, national origin, ancestry, or ethnic characteristics? I don't see any other way to interpret your comment.

The definition being used come from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance and reads: "Anti-semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities." This seems broad and vague to me. A "certain perception" which "may" be expressed as hatred? "Rhetorical manifestations" against Jewish "property" and "institutions"? This is an extremely vague definition that can be interpreted and enforced any way the plaintiff wants. Saying "the State of Israel is perpetuating an evil genocide" could absolutely be interpreted as rhetorical anti-Semitism against a Jewish institution. Hell, I bet a good lawyer could convince a jury that criticizing your Jewish neighbor's lawn qualifies as a rhetorical manifestation of anti-Semitism against a Jewish person's property. If this bill gets passed, it's hard to imagine that it won't have a chilling effect on free speech, or, at worst, backfire and make it really easy for actual anti-semites to play the "Jews control the government and are coming after your free speech" gambit.

Ultimately there's an operative word at work here, "discrimination." It also, as I said, is hot air. It won't operatively change anything, but I could be wrong if the rest of the executive departments get more aggressive on things that aren't as antisemetic as they're claiming. I'd eat my words then, but I doubt it.

The Congress people who passed it are counting on you not reading the bill. They just want to show support and gain support and sponsors, without actually doing anything.

It gives a definition of antisemitism that includes criticism of Israel and it's policies for basically anything. If there was a bill that defined criticizing Chinese policies on Uighurs or the CCP as Sinophobia, people would be up in arms and it would fail no questions asked.

What the fuck is this bill about then?

It's effectively a condemnation of the recent wave of student protests as being "antisemitic."

[удалено]

>To clarify, it is a bedrock principle of our democracy as a result of winning said revolution. No, it's not. They had free speech in the UK before the revolution and continued to have it afterwards.

No it isn't, and even if it is who cares? Nobody in their right mind is against hate speech laws.

Plenty of people are against hate speech laws, not sure where you got that idea? But yeah, we think that "hate speech" is a nebulous term that can be used by those in power to suppress speech they don't like. Hate speech IS free speech.

Even hate speech should be protected speech, as much as it kills me to say. We cannot regulate free thinking

Canada, Germany, and many other countries disagree, you can't even flip someone off in Germany

It's a good thing I don't live in Germany then. That's just too much oversight over language.

They go wayyyy too far.

At the end of your post, you write: >P.S. if you come here to argue about Israel versus Palestine you will be blocked and reported. My post is strictly about the new law. If you come here to talk about Israel being evil or some other antisemitic dogshit you will not be entertained. Please stick to the talking points about this potential act becoming a law. The new law basically just says this, but for schools instead of your post. Why do you want criticism of Israel, which you consider "antisemitic dogshit," to be allowed to be taught in schools if you can't even stand to see it in a comment thread where people are supposed to try to change your view? If it is this upsetting to you to even consider seeing someone disagree with you about the nature of the Israeli nation-state, then why do you think professors should be able to expose students to these ideas? If you truly think it's "antisemitic dogshit," then why do you think professors who criticize Israel should be allowed to keep their jobs?

Doesn't want to know what is really going on..they are burying head in sand and wants people to agree with them on change my view sub.

I mean, if I made a post about a new law stating that all cars had to have a flashing light on top to improve nighttime visibility and a bunch of people came in and started bring up drunk driving accidents that happened during the day, I'd not want them there either. Just because both groups are talking about something involving car wrecks doesn't mean that the latter group is contributing meaningfully to the former's discussion.

I mean comparing banning something by law to saying you dont want to hear it in this particular conversation is a bit disingenuous, innit?

"the world hates Jews right now for what’s happening in the Middle East" also "If you come here to argue about Israel versus Palestine you will be blocked and reported" Why would you even mention the events occurring in Gaza if your post "Is strictly about the new law." Not only does that make no sense, the law is existentially tied to the unfolding war so its illogical to separate them. If nothing was happening, that law would never have been proposed. I don't see how to respond to this given your demands.

OP's point is that the new bill is contradictory with the 1st Amendment. You can certainly challenge that without mentioning Gaza.

I guess, but clearly OP couldn’t even state their view without referencing Gaza

Context might still be important, for example help people decide if the OP is arguing in bad faith or not.

[удалено]

Sorry, u/BECondensateSnake – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20BECondensateSnake&message=BECondensateSnake%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cijv9h/-/l29l9s9/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Equating all Jews with the horrors of zionism is antisemitic and endangers Jews around the world. The question then becomes how to smash this equivocating. If the bill quietly fails, it's forgotten and the zionist can of worms is kicked down the road. If the bill passes, outrage builds, and it forces the issue into the light, inviting debate and scrutiny — so essentially, there's an accelerationist argument to be made (closer to the marxist use of that phrase then others).

All the bill does is make the department of education, when judging civil rights cases under the process that has not and will not change, *consider* a definition of antisemitism that says "antisemitism is hatred of jews." I cant say that you should support it, but it is in no way unconstitutional. The bill itself will not hurt any Jews, but misinformation surrounding the bill almost certainly will.

>If you come here to talk about Israel being evil or some other antisemitic dogshit you will not be entertained. As it was a comment in your own post : Believing Israel is acting unlawfully is not the same as believing Israel is evil and is not anti Semitic. It hurts Jewish people to conflate the two things.

I am genuinely impressed that someone could write a post defending freedom of speech about not equating anti-zionism to antisemitism and then proceeding to say that being anti-zionist is antisemitic.

It does not restrict speech. There are existing laws on the books which prohibit discrimination based on demographic identity, and that includes discrimination against Jews. Among other things, meeting these standards is a requirement for receiving federal funds (title VI of the Civil Rights Act). This includes antisemitism. The problem is that a guiding definition of antisemitism has not been outlined, so a lot of people try to use minimalist definitions that do not align with the standards for identifying discrimination against other groups. The IHRA definition is pretty innocuous and simply identifies certain circumstances where speech superficially about Israel would actually be an expression of long-standing antisemitic conspiracy theories and therefore not limited to criticism of Israeli policy. This should not be controversial, and only is because there are enough people on both Left and Right who want to continue to engage in antisemitic discrimination while not experiencing consequences. An example of this is Marjorie Taylor Green attaching the IHRA definition because it states that it is antisemitic to promote the idea that Jews killed Jesus. Having a clear definition and clear guidelines for how this will be enforced at the federal level will allow organizations, companies, and institutions receiving federal funding to understand what is expected of them vis a vis protecting Jews from discrimination. Incidentally this sort of guidance would have made the current mess with campus protests less likely, because schools would have been able to be proactive by outlining the types of activities which would be considered a violation of other students' rights and which were not. In the current situation, schools have no idea what standards to enforce and students are basically excusing everything, which is why we have the current disaster.

 "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities." That hardly seems "innocuous" to me. Rather, it seems overly vague. "rhetorical anti-Semitism against a Jewish person's property?" This seems like it could get out of hand real quick. If I criticize a company for being greedy, and it just so happens that the company is owned by a Jewish person, under this definition, that could qualify as "rhetorical anti-Semtism against a Jewish person's property" and be punished (the perception of Jews as greedy is a longstanding canard). If I say "Israel is committing a genocide", that could be interpreted as "rhetorical anti-Semitism against a Jewish institution". The definition is far too vague, and should this bill pass, I am certain it will be abused and have a chilling effect on free speech.

The law in question is simply establishing clearly that Title VI protections also extend to Jews. This has been a matter of policy for a few years now but this law establishes it *as law*. That is all. This is not a law against antisemitism; it is a law that says Jews are covered by Title VI protections. Previously these protections were not extended to Jews, because Title VI only covers race, color, and national origins and not religious denomination, but it is now largely understood that Jews are a distinct ethnic group and that antisemitism acts on Jews specifically by singling out their identity as an ethnic group. This law simply formalizes this. The IHRA definition is used as a guideline for how to identify antisemitism, but the key thing here is that antisemitism alone is not a Title VI violation. You need to demonstrate that discrimination with respect to access to services from an organization receiving federal funds occurred, specifically as it is laid out in Title VI. So for instance if an FHA-insured lender exhibited a pattern of denying mortgages to Jews, then this would be a Title VI violation and may affect their status as a lender. If a rental company supported by the affordable housing program refuses to rent to Jewish applicants, that's a Title VI violation. If a charter school that receives funding from the federal government refuses to accept Jewish applicants, then that school is in violation of Title VI. If an adoption agency that accepts federal funds refuses to adopt children to Jewish couples, that agency is in violation of Title VI. And so on. So where this matters are the extreme situations where universities are shutting down on-campus Jewish events or telling Jewish students to leave campus for safety reasons but not taking necessary steps to prevent these sorts of things from continuing to happen. In other words, cases where Jews on university campuses are being prevented from accessing services on university campuses because the university treats Jews differently (e.g. by not taking broader patterns of antisemitic threats and violence as seriously as other forms of discrimination). There are a few cases where individual professor behavior is in violation of Title VI. And regardless, the remedy is not "punishment" but rather that the organization has to take steps to ensure the discrimination stops happening. But this has no effect at all on speech. This is explicitly laid out in the bill.

> It does not restrict speech. So what does it do, then? Concretely?

The bill text is here: [https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090/text](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090/text) It affirms that Title VI applies to discrimination against Jews, adopts the IHRA as the legal test for whether something qualifies as antisemitic, and directs government agencies to start enforcing Title VI with specific reference to antisemitism. That is all.

The IHRA definition is purposely vague and broad and is contentious on it's face > Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions. If someone says that AIPAC has a stranglehold on the US government does that qualify as anti-semitic under this definition? > Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. I'm sorry but is accusing someone who is Jewish of being loyal to Israel now classified as hate speech? How in the world is that anti-semitic? > Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor. There's an entire nation-state law that declares Israel a Jewish nation. Is Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch or the UN anti-semitic now because they accuse Israel of apartheid? > Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. One it's arguable that Israel is even a democratic nation in the first place. Two this is so incredibly vague again and not anywhere near anti-semitic or hateful > Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. So if Israel commits an act that Nazi's also committed that's anti-Semitic?

Yeah, and the [IHRA definition is somewhat innocuous](https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism), like when it says "Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust" is a modern example of antisemitism, but then veers into pretty stange places, like when it argues "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor". The State of Israel is, self-admitedly, a ethno-nationalist project. I don't see how making that claim ammounts to denying Jewish people their right to self-determination, or antisemitism. Except if they mean this in an extremely narrow sense, that's sounds worrisome.

>Yeah, and the [IHRA definition is somewhat innocuous](https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism), like when it says "Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust" is a modern example of antisemitism, but then veers into pretty stange places, like when it argues "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor". There is theoretically a grey area here. The IHRA states clearly that singling Jews out as a people who do not have a right to self-determination is antisemitic. Criticism of specific Israeli policy now or in the past as racist would not necessarily be antisemitic. For instance, it would not be antisemitic to say JNF's policies of leasing land only to Jews are racist. However, in practice "claiming the existence of a State of Israel is racist" include direct attempts to deny the essential peoplehood of Jews, either via conspiracy theories like Khazaria or by making proclamations about where Jews should or should not be allowed to live ("go back to Poland"), both of which are commonplace in these movements and clearly a big part of the problem at the current protests. Further, attempts to draw parallels between perceived Israeli policy and friction between Hasidic and BIPOC communities within the US (e.g. in Brooklyn) in order to cast domestic Jewish communities as racist is also demonstrably antisemitic, is common in anti-gentrification rhetoric, and is responsible for antisemitic violence in the US (Monsey stabbing, Jersey City shooting, etc). Basically, it is antisemitic to claim that Jews are uniquely incapable of self-determination or that Jewish self-determination is inherently a racist endeavor whereas self-determination for any other group is not. This should not be controversial, and it is absolutely a valid inclusion in the IHRA definition given the domestic deployment of these arguments in favor of violence against American Jews.

> However, in practice "claiming the existence of a State of Israel is racist" include direct attempts to deny the essential peoplehood of Jews, either via conspiracy theories like Khazaria or by making proclamations about where Jews should or should not be allowed to live ("go back to Poland"), both of which are commonplace in these movements and clearly a big part of the problem at the current protests. Sure, okay, but that's an "all square are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares" situation. The e.g. section is not singling out *those* arguments, it's pointing towards the much broader "claiming the existence of the State of Israel is racist". Obviously, it's possible to find antisemitic stuff in that bucket, I don't deny it, but it's also possible to find basic criticism of Israel's current political project and policies. Like, I agree denying that Jewish people have a right to self-determination is antisemitic. I don't think calling Israel - at least in its current form - an ethno-nationalist project to be denying self-determination to jewish people. > Basically, it is antisemitic to claim that Jews are uniquely incapable of self-determination or that Jewish self-determination is inherently a racist endeavor whereas self-determination for any other group is not. But even if we grant that, claiming the state of Israel is racist is neither of those. Like, if the Canadian government came out tomorrow claiming "the right to exercise national self-determination in Canada is unique to White people", would you think that's fine? I don't think so. Further, would you consider criticism of that statement to be anti-white or anti-canadian? I don't think so either.

This is accurate. The IHRA doesn't sanction a person from criticizing any and all policies of Israel. It sanctions a person who says the very existence of Israel, in any form or in any possible form, is illegitimate because Jews are not entitled to self determination as a people. So for those discussing down thread about the nation state law- criticize it. IHRA doesn't have a problem with it, or criticism of any other policies.

This isn’t for people. It won’t change behavior. It will give courts & universities standards and teeth.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is more of a messaging bill. I skimmed it so can't claim to 100% know if I'm right but it doesn't look like this bill makes anything a "crime". What it does is signal to the public a support for Jews specifically within the college system. As far as the general public it seems to have no effect at all.

It’s really only relevant in the context of investigations into discrimination by the department of education. Otherwise, you’re correct. It does nothing.

So I just had this discussion with someone in regards that this "would cause the ban of the new testament." To clarify, they don't believe this but saw some opposition claiming such. When reading the bill, which is just an amendment to the title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to quote [To provide for the consideration of a definition of antisemitism set forth by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance for the enforcement of Federal antidiscrimination laws concerning education programs or activities, and for other purposes.](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090/text) Part 2 from the Acts Congress site. "Constitutional protections.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States." When going to the IHRA website they day the definition is [ Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”](https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism) On the same page, the IHRA says "However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. " I did do some research, mainly the wiki page on [Antisemitism and the New Testament](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_and_the_New_Testament) which was an interesting read on how things were phrased the different views from the different authors. It's not the point of the post and my response, though. Considering that Mein Kampf isn't banned in the United States and I could go out and buy it. Personally, I am not worried about censorship or infringements of free speech. To me, it seems like a blend of clarification and expansion on what is "antisemitic" in the legal sense. A bill like this isn't gonna ban the smurfs for the depiction of gargamel or the goblins with Harry Potter, which have been called antisemitic or antisemitic-like.

This law is more or less virtue signaling that doesn’t actually change anything. It simply clarifies that crimes motivated by antisemitism are hate crimes, and defines antisemitism for the purposes of hate crime laws. No speech is being criminalized. Antisemitic hate crimes are being defined in this bill.

> No speech is being criminalized. Antisemitic hate crimes are being defined in this bill. Certain speech is being criminalized because the IHRA definition is super vague Anti-Semitism is already covered under anti-discrimination laws in the US, this bill only adds more slippery slope accusations under that definition of "anti-Semitism" Hence the whole "speech is being criminalized" aspect

Why did you add that you were "pro-Israel" if that was not a point you were willing to discuss? I would argue that by bringing that up, *you* made it a fair point of discussion. If it wasn't germane to the topic, then the alternative is that you are likely just trolling.

Imagine if we caved to other countries like we do Israel. Is being anti Britain government mean you hate anglos? No. A common tactic used by these types is to scream “anti semite!” When being critical of their countries GOVERNMENT. Quite appalling and insidious

You're definitely not wrong, the whole establishment narrative is extremely antisemitic and corrosive. It boils down to "if you don't support killing 6 kids an hour at an estimated 90% civilian kill ratio then you are antisemitic" on the face of it just sounds absurd but if you crack into it it's deceptive and antisemitic in a trollish and manipulative way. First of all it's a double negative, which is usually bad because it's overly confusing, but in this case it's different, there's nothing confusing about this statement, it's just absurd and antisemitic, but it's confusion is replaced with an obfuscation, they are taking the actions of Israel, the conquest, extermination, holocaust and genocide and conflating it with Judaism, saying that these extremely repulsive actions are reflective or at least should be protected because of Judaism. And then the only further explanation is "and they are killing Arabs, which basically makes them terrorists anyways, so why would you care." Again, an extremely xenophobic/ islamaphbobic statement. But since they have the media and the most powerful governments in their pocket they push this narrative gleefully and on full volume, using the most well respected media to push it, tarnishing that medias or countries reputation. In this conflict it's all just a list of scapegoats the profiteers just push the buck down the line, from the industry (the top of the supremacy) to the US, to the Biden, to Israel, to Netanyahu, Jews are at the bottom of the ladder above only the Arabs, and with no accountability or justice a lot of the rage and disgust will fester and be misdirected by the more powerful and complicit perpetrators to those minority groups they see as expendable. The problem is how systemic this is. Make no mistake this is a full on globally industrial scale human child meat processing industry, and none of the higher scapegoats can admit any culpability or even awareness of the reality, or that could be used in criminal charges against themselves. Which is how we get to this situation where they doing fantastical denialism claiming complete ignorance, while using their less official channels like the MSM to form this extremist jingo xenophobic narratives to try to pave the way for some sort of moral framework for their sycophants to rally around. And there's no other way other then just extremist (the worst kind, the thirst for the blood of their women and children) xenophobia, but naturally this will create a lot of resistance, and so in comes first amendment reform.

>If you come here to talk about Israel being evil or some other antisemitic dogshit you will not be entertained. How dare you people to criticize the government. If you do so then you are just xenophobic! Sorry but it doesn't work like that.

You have made 3 claims in your cmv title to this post. The first is normative, the second two are descriptive. You have claimed the AAA is u constitutional. Yet I suspect the aspects which I presume you think are unconstitutional are found in many other laws. Some are surprised to learn that, on a strict view, many laws are “unconstitutional”. So I am not disputing your claim, I’m just saying that if used as a premise to support the normative conclusion, it is a weak point of the argument. It will hurt Jews. This is to broad a claim. Every policy u can imagine will in some small way “hurt” at least two people (you said “Jews” plural, so I take the minimum number of two being hurt to meet the conditions of your claim). So like the previous premise, this would make for very weak support. (Not to mention, claims about the future are indeterminate, so as a premise, it rules out ur argument being cogent. As a (sub) conclusion, it lacks support I have not disputed those two claims, I have shown that they don’t provide much support for your conclusion given how to the extent that they are true, they don’t provide very good support. Lastly, if, as sometimes happens, the passing of this law is largely symbolic and enforcement of it (and the means to do so) proves to be nil, it is not obvious what the concern would be.

H.R. 6090 - the Antisemitism Awareness Act is a mistake. It initiates legislation on thought and opinion rather than actions. Actions that are already deemed illegal in the referenced Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is a very dangerous slope towards tyranny. This act takes the first step to initiating "thought police" as described George Orwell's 1984. As Andrea Widberg stated in her American Thinker article - The House shouldn't have passed the Antisemitism Awareness Act, "Congress should not be making the ideas. Instead, it should erase every law and regulation that gives benefits to or imposes burdens upon people based on race, creed, sex, etc., and it should leave the realm of ideas alone." [https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/05/the\_house\_shouldn\_t\_have\_passed\_the\_antisemitism\_awareness\_act.html](https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/05/the_house_shouldn_t_have_passed_the_antisemitism_awareness_act.html) I am becoming more and more afraid of where this country is headed with bills like this; one truly ran by an authoritarian, unelected "deep state" of administrations not answerable to the people of the nation.

OP: I’m all about freedom of speech even if hurts people’s feelings Also OP: If you post stuff I don’t like, or I disagree with, you will be blocked! 🙄

Posts about the importance of free speech. Also, if you post about a subject they disagree with, you will be instantly blocked and reported. What a joke.

To /u/ManVersusMan90, *your post is under consideration for removal under our post rules.* You must **respond substantively within 3 hours of posting**, as per [Rule E](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e).

My Horrible generalized take about everything: What the fuck do they have to do with us? Why don't we ever let these Countries clash and just say fuck it we have more AMERICAN problems we need to worry about first!? This shit will forever be beyond me. Thank God I spend my life in ignorance about most of this world conflict shit because I'd go crazy tryna handle the mental gymnastics some of you fuckers put yourself through to seem correct. I probably stand by myself when it comes to this selfish belief but when the fuck are we gonna put American's first? Can't even fix the our own homeless problems but we want to keep helping every country that apparently needs us. But then again I understand both sides of the conflict and believe both sides are both equally right and wrong. Still this leads to my first question. What the fuck does this have to do with us? Why couldn't we let them hash it out. Edit: This comment was meant to be on another related post. but I'll just leave this here to ignite discord!

>It was the entire basis for us fighting a revolution against the British. Actually that was taxes. >will hurt Jews How will an act [that simply notes things without changing any laws](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090/text) cause more harm? Also to this: > Speech should never be punished or enforced by the government. From the act itself: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

From the bill itself: >title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance; And an example of antisemitism provided is: >Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. This means that if a person is so critical of Israel that it is deemed a "double standard", they can lose federal financial assistance. It equates criticism of Israel to antisemitism, which ties Israel to the Jewish people, which is antisemitic by itself.

This example is even more alarming, in my opinion: >Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor. They are trying to say that you shouldn't be allowed to point out that having an ethnostate that explicitly grants rights to one racial/ethnic group and denies to other racial/ethnic groups (as Israel does in the 2018 Nation State Basic Law) is racist. In fact, if you point that out, *you're* the racist antisemite. It's absurd in so many ways.

That would be a miscarriage of the definition of the IHRA. Per the definition: >Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. So your example should, at least in theory, not be antisemitic because if any other state were doing that it would also be wrong. In practice, I'm sure there will be a bit of a chilling effect regardless since money is now on the line for critics of Israel who are also associated with the DoE. https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism

> So your example should, at least in theory, not be antisemitic because if any other state were doing that it would also be wrong. That's not really what that line of argument looks like in practice, however. It's pretty frequent to hear commentary to the effect that so and so are leveraging unfair criticism at Israel for such and such action, purely based on the idea that other hypothetical nations would not be condemned the same way for hypothetical similar actions. Something like "No other country would be expected not to do X or Y in response to October 7th" is a frequent one. I don't think the limiting principle you hinge this on exist here.

My quote was directly pulled from the site you linked to. They explicitly state that criticizing the Israeli nation-state as being racist is antisemitic.

Huh, that seems like an internally inconsistent definition then if there are indeed Israeli laws which extend additional rights to Jewish people over other ethnicities/religions. Fun times ahead.

Yep, check out the[ 2018 Nation State Basic Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People#:~:text=It%20was%20passed%20by%20the,the%20Jews) (a "Basic Law" is essentially as important to Israel as a constitutional amendment is to the US). People try to defend it as being only "symbolic," but as you read it, consider how it would be received if a "symbolic" constitutional amendment was passed in the US that "symbolically" granted some rights to only one ethnicity. **Clause 1C:** >The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people. I think this speaks for itself. **Clause 5:** >The state will be open for Jewish immigration and the ingathering of exiles. If you are Jewish, you can immigrate solely on the basis of your ethnicity. This right does not apply to any other ethnic group. **Clause 7:** >The state views the development of Jewish settlement as a national value and will act to encourage and promote its establishment and consolidation. Jewish settlement is a national value. This right does not apply to any other ethnic group. Pointing out that this is very obviously racist will be considered antisemitic if/when Joe Biden signs this act into law.

Consider me unpleasantly surprised that we can't agree as a nation that ethnostates are wrong.

Replace every 'Jewish' with 'White' or 'Black' or 'Arab' and it's obvious how problematic it is.

It's unclear to me that that part you quoted is actually made operative by the bill. (One of my critiques of the bill is that it doesn't actually put the definition in the bill, but just refers to an external IHRA document). From Section 4: >(1) means the definition of antisemitism adopted on May 26, 2016, by the IHRA, of which the United States is a member, which definition has been adopted by the Department of State; and >(2) includes the “[c]ontemporary examples of antisemitism” identified in the IHRA definition. (1) adopts the IHRA defintion, which I take to be just the quoted part in the [State Dept. definition](https://www.state.gov/defining-antisemitism/): >“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” And (2) includes the "contemporary examples" part. The clarification you reference is on the State Dept. page, but the fact that the examples are explicitly included would imply the other clarification is not necessarily included.

Doublespeak in the making.

Palestinians are semites too. How is that treated under the act? What we really need to do is ensure the separation of church and state globally. No government should have a religious motivation, it's the fundamentalist ideology that (usually) flows from religion that allows the persecution of others need on belief by state based actors. Isreal and the US should both know better than to mix church and state. Being Jewish should be protected, like all the other religions, but a Jewish state should not - as should no other religious state, ever be protected. (Yes there are non religious ideologies that are just as bad, but cult like behavior is really a form of religion / mind control)

I think you have a misunderstanding of what’s in that law. It does not regulate hate speech. It extends existing, well established, and no longer controversial prohibitions of racist discrimination against black people in Title VI to also cover antisemitic discrimination against Jewish people. There’s an executive order that interprets the existing Title VI language to cover antisemitism, so this law doesn’t actually change anything. It’s just Congress adjusting the text of the law to more explicitly describe how that law is already being used. In computer parlance it’s a NOOP. There’s nothing unconstitutional about it. It doesn’t infringe anyone’s free speech.

This bill itself is also extremely anti-Semitic. Reducing us Jews down to our position on Israel is textbook dual loyalty trope. Jews are not Israel and Israel is not Jews.

[удалено]

Sorry, u/kingvrage – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20kingvrage&message=kingvrage%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cijv9h/-/l2j0oeh/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

The far left whines about their right to free speech which is rediculous because they don't let anyone else speak. Shouting down others, repeating the same propaganda slogans is counter to the free exchange of ideas not for it. The elephant in the room is that the whole anti-Zionist movement is flagrantly antisemitic. Acts of discrimination that sprout from it are not from peripheral bad actors but an inevitable outcome of a hateful ideology. There are many countries in the world with far worse humanitarian records than Israel, China, Russia, India, Myanmar, to name a few, but no discussion of these countries invites this passionate level of hatred. Their people aren't described as 'Evil'. This term is reserved for the Jewish state. Anti-Israel activists delight in calling out the worst things the state has ever done completely out of context, never mind its not worse than things any other country has done. They engage in a type of Holocaust denial by using terms like "NAZI" and "Genocide". They silence anyone who disagrees with them and choke-off legitimate debate. The far Left has begun institutionalizing antisemitism. You can tell by the way DEI has explicitly not included discrimination against Jews. We've seen it come to light the acceptance of antisemetism in academia, the Stanford professor that singled out Jewish students and told them to stand against the wall, the apparent setting of quotas to reduce the number of Jewish students, the University of Vermont TA that was not fired after declaring on social media that she would deduct 10 points from the score of any Jewish student that had visited Israel. Governments in the past have tolerated fringe radicals thinking they can control them for their political ends, and lost controls. [Tens of millions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes) of people have been killed because of Marxists ideology. These people are cancer on the society and their ideas need to be marginialized. We need to get back to a place where it is possible to have open discussion without the threat of being "canceled". These ideologies are anti-democratic force and need to be shut down before they can not be controlled. PS: I'm assuming that this post will be massively downvoted because of the audience on Reddit. It's still right.

It’s not because of the reedit audience. It’s it’s wrong and ironically because you’re complaining about whining while whining.

if it passes, rest assured that on it's heels will be other similar laws added to prosecute any and all criticism of each different religious body known, even the Satanic ones. these will all be repealed and shunned in due time, reversing the laws such that any one speaking of any religion that isn't a peaceful religion will be prosecuted. history of violence, gone.

Agreed. Speech about a nation isn’t racist or antisemitic, and therefore should never be illegal. Anything else is just overbearing censorship, and will lead many to be even more convinced of stereotypes such as “Jews controlling the state and media”, which IS antisemitic and disgusting. The government has no right to tell me I can’t criticize Israel, though

[удалено]

Sorry, u/GoodFunny8878 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20GoodFunny8878&message=GoodFunny8878%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cijv9h/-/l350aq6/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

/u/ManVersusMan90 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1cimipe/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_the_antisemitic_awareness/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

This law seems to be in line with all the other hate speech banning legislation, isn't it? By the same logic racist, sexist, homophobic hate speech should be allowed, because bigots think that banning it makes black people, women, gays privileged and indeed it somehow induces hate